자유로운 의사결정 불능 상태에서의 자살과 자살 부책 약관에 대한 검토

Abstract

This paper has the purpose of annotation of Supreme Court’s precedents related to the insurance cases which held insurers accountable for suicides initially subject to insurers’exemption. The precedents cited herein are (1) the ruling on suicide committed in an extremely excited mental status, (2) the ruling on suicide committed under intoxication and (3) the ruling on suicide committed in a psychiatrically disordered status. These rulings recognized insurers’liability in the cases where the insured hurt him or herself in a situation where he or she could not make own liberal decisions due to the loss of mind and body, etc. subject to the exemptions of Article 5 providing the reasons of no claim payment by insurers (① where the insured hurt him or herself intentionally, ② where an insurance beneficiary hurt him or herself intentionally and ③ where a policyholder hurt the insured intentionally). The courts viewed that, according to the purpose of Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial code, in an insurance contract covering death as an insurance accident, if suicide is exempted from insurers’ liabilities, such suicide means the kind of behavior causing own death by taking own life with clear recognition of such a behavior and its purpose. In this sense, such suicide cannot be viewed to cover the cases where the insured has caused own death when they could not make own free decision because of a mental disorder, etc. In such cases, according to the courts, if a direct cause of death is external factors, those accidents are not intentionally but accidentally committed in terms of insurance, corresponding to insurance accident. One of the most important functions of insurance is to help affected people in accidents over come economic and mental difficulties and anxiety. Of course, due to the speculative nature in insurance contracts, it is true that insurance policies are often abused for the purposes of taking insurance claim, crimes such as a murder of the insured after signing a life insurance, moral hazard, adverse selection, etc. Concerning intentional suicide cases, it is possible to see more adverse effects than proper effects of insurance. Still, there are many unintentional suicidal accidents as well. Therefore, the proviso of Life Insurance Standard Clauses, which makes insurers liable even in suicide cases if they meet certain conditions, should be viewed as to facilitate the proper insurance functions than adverse functions. Therefore, Article 732-2 of the Commercial Code is deemed more reasonable to apply instead of Article 659 since it is obvious that, when the insured is unable to make a free independent decision due to a mental disorder, etc., the person could not understand own behaviors or their results. In addition, as insurance has a proper function of economic stabilization, it is also significant to note that insurance can help bring economic stability to the bereaved families in suicidal cases committed in the status where a free independent decision cannot be made. Thus, more of the proper insurance functions need to be considered in interpreting such cases.